RE: virus: Social Metaphysics

Robin Faichney (
Sat, 27 Sep 1997 08:25:35 +0100

> From: David McFadzean[]
> At 06:36 PM 9/26/97 +0100, Robin Faichney wrote:
> >> From: David McFadzean[]
> >>
> >> If it is possible for something to exist before it is detected,
> >> then it is possible for something to exist without being detected.
> >>
> >> Agree of disagree?
> >>
> >It is certainly possible that such things exist. But their
> >existence is unverifiable, and therefore not relevant to
> >any objective methology.
> I would say it is relevant whether or not it is possible for
> something to exist independent of detection. By admitting it
> is possible, you agree that objectivity is primary. Existence
> is orthogonal to knowledge.
Don't confuse the general, theoretical scenario, with the
particular, practical one. Consideration of the existence
of undetected objects is necessarily entirely theoretical.
Verification of actual existence is very, very far from
orthogonal to knowledge. It is obviously the case that
we can do all kinds of theoretical speculation. What
actually exists in the objective universe is rather more
constrained. I say that, for us (which is who's
discussing this, isn't it?), actual as opposed to
theoretical objective existence is dependent upon

That's also why thoughts don't make the grade, of
course (though the grade they do make is just as
good in its own way!). Focus on particulars.